Rand Critics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Does that mean you want to keep the door open for someone to say, "Existence doesn't exist" and have that make sense?

Exactly, Michael! Now you're going in the right direction.

. . .

So, Michael, "existence" does not exist. Yep, that's what I say AND it makes

sense.

Dayaamm!

I haven't read the rest of this post because I had to stop here.

I'm laughing too hard...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's have a small show of hands.

I received a private message suggesting that this thread be moved to the Garbage Pile, where the discussion can proceed. I would not want to do that to a thread started by a young newbie who emanates pure seriousness (Hazard, Jordan).

But this thing is spinning in circles and stopped being serious a long while back. It's now a stage for Xray to play and nothing more. The vast majority of it really does not have a place in a section devoted to "Objectivist Epistemology."

If you are in favor of this thing going to the Garbage Pile, please let me know, either here or by private message. However, I will not do that without Hazard saying something. In my kind of world, that would be rude behavior to a good guy acting in good faith.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The fallacy of self evident truth: "I think therefore I am."(?) Man kicks a rock: "Ow!" (?) Brant kicks Xray therefore Xray is! (?) (That felt good.)

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Let's have a small show of hands.

I received a private message suggesting that this thread be moved to the Garbage Pile, where the discussion can proceed. I would not want to do that to a thread started by a young newbie who emanates pure seriousness (Hazard, Jordan).

But this thing is spinning in circles and stopped being serious a long while back. It's now a stage for Xray to play and nothing more. The vast majority of it really does not have a place in a section devoted to "Objectivist Epistemology."

If you are in favor of this thing going to the Garbage Pile, please let me know, either here or by private message. However, I will not do that without Hazard saying something. In my kind of world, that would be rude behavior to a good guy acting in good faith.

Michael

No need. I'll just cut out the silly crap. At least for a week.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Please don't do that.

Can you imagine reading Xray's preaching without humor?

Don't you like us anymore?

Michael

[Xray]

Existence is. It's an all inclusive concept. Xray is using existence as a stolen concept--that is, she is absolutely dependent on it in all respects of her life and thinking while she consciously denies the very thing not understanding she is denying herself too. She also equivocates by throwing false axioms into her witch's pot (I'm just having a little fun with a verbal weggie) and uses their discredit against real axioms.

--Brant

PS: Unfortunately I was adding two PS's in editing this post and they were lost when I received an email. I disabled the instant display function and hope that is the end of it. I suggest anyone posting here on a regular basis do the same.

PPS: "Existence exists" is a (necessary) redundancy, not a contradiction. "Existence doesn't exist" is a contradiction. What Xray is doing is denying the existence of concepts, but concepts exist as long as minds exist to create, understand and use them. Existence is the basic all inclusive concept. The statement "existence exists" is just an emphatic way of saying existence is, also a redundancy.

PPPS: It's not "declaration of independence" but "Declaration of Independence." Understandable mistake for a german living in germany even if not Germane to someone who could have been named germaine but unfortunately wasn't so I can't make fun of her. I even have "georgia On My Mind." Somebody, make me stop! I've just ruind my spel checkr.

I know it's usually written Declaration of Independence. Just as "god" is mostly written "God".

[ginny]

Michael, I'm all for being considerate and all that, and I like Hazard,, but this does seem to have turned into X-Ray's personal thread. Perhaps we could ask ourselves if anyone is getting anything out of this. (Except for Brant's fantasizing about kicking X-Ray - which may be a collective fantasy at this point.)

Show of hands?

Ginny

Edited June 25, 2009 by ginny

[tjohnson]

Xray is not arguing with herself - it takes two to tangle. If it is garbage it is not Xray's fault alone.

[tjohnson]

BTW Xray, we already have a lengthy thread on "existence exists" which I started, if you want to see what kind of arguments were used there.

[Xray]

Michael, I'm all for being considerate and all that, and I like Hazard,, but this does seem to have turned into X-Ray's personal thread. Perhaps we could ask ourselves if anyone is getting anything out of this. (Except for Brant's fantasizing about kicking X-Ray - which may be a collective fantasy at this point.)

Show of hands?

Ginny

Ginny,

Collectively ganging up, fantasizing about "kicking the messenger" is of course a lot easier than refuting the arguments.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

BTW Xray, we already have a lengthy thread on "existence exists" which I started, if you want to see what kind of arguments were used there.

I read that thread a while ago, and also posted on it. The discussion about Rand's "existence exists" was very controversial there too.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"No problem. I don't take those things personally."

Yes, like President O'Biwan the Magnificent, she is above the commoners. She descends from the perches of the Valkyries.

Odin watches scowling.

Adam

Selene, if you devoted half as much much energy to a genuine discussion than you do into thinking out new personal attacks, maybe you would have made some headway.

But instead, as if on cue, you verbally jump out like a jack in the box each time I post something. You are stuck in a stimulus- response pattern like a kid playing the class clown.

There is no Valkyrie descending on you, Selene. What is descending on you are some truths about Rand philosophy.

POINT OF INFORMATION! Which according to Robert's Rules of Order is always in order/

That issue is moot by your statement: "No problem. I don't take those things personally." Therefore, even if I intended it to be a personal attack, which it was not, you admitted that you do not take them personally, so....can you feel a "...new personal attacks..." personally if the tree in the forest that does not exist hits you in the head and knocks you unconscious in a conscious way?

Give me some examples of three different scenarios where this would not-exist in existence...yes.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

What a sorry spectacle. Xray makes some good points, but as she's critical of Rand's ideas we see the knee-jerk reactions that are so typical for most Objectivist forums: jeering, psychologizing and condescending remarks, but no serious arguments. The principle of charity apparently doesn't exist in Objectivist land. [sarcasm mode] That explains of course why Objectivism is so successful in the world.[/sarcasm mode]

[Selene]

Ms. Valkyrie knows all!

"I know about this thread, have read it completely..." which of course differs from her reading Rand completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSKL5E3zSjs

Odin is extremely displeased.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK. You guys are right. No ganging up.

I moved this to "Objectivism in Dark Places" by my own decision. I even left a link behind.

Maybe not infiltrating Objectivist Epistemology as the intention seems to be, but also not garbage.

Do carry on.

(surge in the music for The Xray Show)

XRAY －COME ON

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3hQY19B5Ec

Michael

[Xray]

POINT OF INFORMATION! Which according to Robert's Rules of Order is always in order/

That issue is moot by your statement: "No problem. I don't take those things personally." Therefore, even if I intended it to be a personal attack, which it was not, you admitted that you do not take them personally, so....can you feel a "...new personal attacks..." personally if the tree in the forest that does not exist hits you in the head and knocks you unconscious in a conscious way?

Give me some examples of three different scenarios where this would not-exist in existence...yes.

Adam

Identifying a post as a personal attack does not imply that the attacks get under one's skin.

Bottom line: your rants don't faze me.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

True.

You are just disturbed period.

Adam

[Xray]

Existence is. It's an all inclusive concept. Xray is using existence as a stolen concept--that is, she is absolutely dependent on it in all respects of her life and thinking while she consciously denies the very thing not understanding she is denying herself too. She also equivocates by throwing false axioms into her witch's pot (I'm just having a little fun with a verbal weggie) and uses their discredit against real axioms.

--Brant

"Existence is. It's an all inclusive concept" (Brant)

What does this mean? Existence is inclusive of existence?

This was covered in my last post:

"It makes no difference if it is claimed

that "existence exists" means all that exists, it still can't get away from

the fact it is the entities and relationships which exist, not the abstract, " (Xray)

The word, existence has no meaning without the "thing" in existence.

"Existence exists" connects to nothing to give the phrase definitive meaning.

"It is impossible to even think "existence" without mentally

referencing some thing that exists, or is believed to exist. Ergo,

"existence exists" is nonsense." (Xray)

Once again, "By all means, please explain to me by use in a sentence the

word, existence, without direct or indirect reference to a thing. Can you do

that? If not, what does this say about "existence exists?" (Xray)

"(I'm just having a little fun with a verbal weggie) and uses their

discredit against real axioms." (Brant)

How about naming one of those "real axioms" and see how it stands up to a

bit of questioning?

What are the "false axioms" that you claim I threw in? How can you tell a

"false axiom" from a "true axiom?"

As for "stolen concept", what is it, and how does it relate to anything in

my post?

Please don't cop out on the "read Rand" thing. I have read and I don't see

it explained. That's why I'm asking you. If you think otherwise, maybe you

can explain her "explanation."

Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Yer going to have to wait on this one, Xray, unless yer up at 4:00 AM in germany.

--Brant

not allowed to use Rand ;)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What are the "false axioms" that you claim I threw in? How can you tell a "false axiom" from a "true axiom?"

Hint: You identify a true axiom by the fact that you can't prove it with logic, but you need to accept it in order to deny it.

Example, existence doesn't exist.

You have to accept existence (i.e., exist) in order to deny existence.

Please hold onto your automatic Tarzan holler of victory for a bit and try to grok this idea in good faith.

It will do you good. It doesn't hurt. I promise...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

What are the "false axioms" that you claim I threw in? How can you tell a "false axiom" from a "true axiom?"

Hint: You identify a true axiom by the fact that you can't prove it with logic, but you need to accept it in order to deny it.

Example, existence doesn't exist.

You have to accept existence (i.e., exist) in order to deny existence.

Please hold onto your automatic Tarzan holler of victory for a bit and try to grok this idea in good faith.

It will do you good. It doesn't hurt. I promise...

Michael

I'm going to see what she does with this first. Also, to say existence doesn't exist is to use existence as a stolen concept--stealing (using) the idea in order to refute it. Concurrently, there is no subjective without the underlying objective--fact(s). With her emphasis on epistemology you'd think she'd have more respect for ideas.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

You have to accept existence (i.e., exist) in order to deny existence.

I will agree that I have to exist in order to discuss what 'existence exists' means. However, if I find that it is poorly worded, simplistic, and ambiguous it does not mean I "deny existence".

[BaalChatzaf]

You have to accept existence (i.e., exist) in order to deny existence.

I will agree that I have to exist in order to discuss what 'existence exists' means. However, if I find that it is poorly worded, simplistic, and ambiguous it does not mean I "deny existence".

There are certain philosophic axioms which in order to deny them at one level or abstraction must be accepted at another level of abstraction. It is one of the infelicities of self-reference. Such denials are the same sort of paradox as the famous Richard's Paradox

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%27s_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will agree that I have to exist in order to discuss what 'existence exists' means.

GS,

You put the laughing smiley, but that is exactly the point.

If you are going to abstract existence, it has to refer to something. You are part of that something. Otherwise you can't abstract anything since you don't exist.

To deny existence, all you have is an abstraction as an end-in-itself, with no connection to reality.

Believe it or not, that is what is at stake. There are those who fight tooth and nail to propose a "second reality" (although they never use that term) where abstractions are a more perfect existence than the "other reality" out here where we bump into stuff. They want the tie to be completely severed between abstractions and reality.

After that premise gets accepted, then they want abstractions to rule the "other reality."

It's weird, but that's what the yelling, snarkiness, posturing, gobbledygook, doublespeak and all the rest is all about. They are committed to this idea in an all-or-nothing Kamikaze manner. Rand stepped on that bunion really hard. She said, "No, it isn't that way at all," and they have been yelling ever since.

(Well, she did kinda call them evil monsters for thinking that way, too... )

Michael

[Xray]

BTW Xray, we already have a lengthy thread on "existence exists" which I

started, if you want to see what kind of arguments were used there. (GS)

GS, You had written there:

"Thought I'd better start a new thread. After considering this some more it

seems to me that the statement "existence exists" means existence is

undefinable. So we must accept this term and move on but I cannot do this.

Let me ask you this, do atoms exist? Do quarks exist? Do tachyons exist? All

of a sudden 'exists' is not so cut and dried is it? No, this term 'exist' or

'existence' is way too vague to be axiomatic. In fact, what does this phrase

even mean? It's almost as if you are defining 'existence' with the word

'exists' which amounts to saying nothing." (GS from the thread cited).

It is the last statement that corresponds to the point made in my post. The

terms, exist and existence, have no meaning unless and until an entity is

referenced. The words would not even been in a language system without

reference to a claim of an entity and\or a relationship existing. "Existence

exists" as you say, "......amounts to saying nothing."

I'l invite everyone here to do the litmus test and utter the statement "Existence exists" to their family and friends. I bet you'll receive puzzled looks accompanied by a "HUH"? or "What do you mean - 'Existence exists'"?

I'll do the same and then we can compare the results. Should be quite entertaining.

Translated into German, the phrase sounds every bit as nonsensical as in English.

I'm sure Dragonfly will agree. Let's ask him:

"Existenz existiert" oder "Die Existenz existiert" - Dragonfly, bist du auch der Meinung, dass das total unsinnig klingt?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray